Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

How do I prove a band is notable enough to not be deleted?

I was wondering what type of accomplishments or connections are required for a band to be considered worthy of the wiki. Are there certain criteria that the editors are looking for on their way to the delete button?

I don't want to make the page like a press release, but I need to boast some accomplishments so that we're taken seriously. Any tips on walking that line gracefully? Thanks.108.209.60.18 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

see WP:Band for notability criteria as relates to bands, the #1 requirement is that "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the band itself." Also see WP:COI, if you are a member of the band concerned its not recommended ( but not forbidden) that you write about yourself, as it can be difficult to be suitably detached! Good luck 94.195.187.69 (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Request

Hello teahouse, Me and two other University Students have recently been building upon the Internet Addiction Disorder page adding new sections and information. We requested feedback on the talk page but only one user appears to have responded.

At the top of the article it asked for 'reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines' me and the other users have rearranged the page and would like feedback as to whether this meets Wikipedia standards.

Also as I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, please also take the time to request any additions, inform me of any mistakes or even give me tips for future edits, thanks. MikeMov89 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, MikeMov89 and welcome to the Teahouse! The article looks good, tell your friends that they did a good job and so did you. I've removed the maintainance template. Cheers, Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hallows AG, thanks for taking the time to look at our page. MikeMov89 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Referencing an "About Me" page.

Hello there, I'm new to Wikipedia and am currently doing an assignment at University. We've been advised not to use primary references, but to instead use secondary references. For example, my group is making a page for Adam Joinson, we've searched high and low for information which can be found on his website but not anywhere else (e.g. early career). Is it a case of looking harder, or is there a point where we give up and reference his career from his own web site? (which is linked externally from the University of Bath through here: http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/faculty/adam_joinson.html) Thank you. Sjr250790 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sjr250790. Thanks for coming by. If you cannot find secondary sources for the man Wikipedia will not regard him as notable and the article will not be accepted. The bad news is that if you have not found anything after searching high and low it is unlikely you will find enough sources to cut it. Better to look for a more notable subject to write about.--Charles (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Sjr is saying that there is some information that can only be sourced from the subject, this is not unusual and if the information is not contentious or believed to be unreliable, then it is fine to cite it. For example the school they attended and where they grew up, even if it were cited to a newspaper or journal would probably come from the subject anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

WP:SELFPUB discusses when you can use self published sources. filceolaire (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding tables to pages

Hi,

I was wondering if you could help me. I'm working with a group of other Wikipedian's to create a Wikipedia page on "Internet Relationship's" and I'm stuck as to how you code tables into the Wikipedia pages?

Any assistance/guidance would be much appreciated. Tlarco29 (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Tiarco! Have you checked out this page? --I am a Ninja, and this is my master. 16:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbiAbernathy (talk • contribs)

Introducing myself

Hi guys,

I'm new to wikipedia and have just started writing bits for wikipedia in my sandbox. I was wondering if there were any particular tips I should be aware of or things to watch out for?

Thanx

Cnurney9 (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! Wikipedia:Five Pillars is the most important. There are other policies. As long as you do your best and use common sense, you'll have no problem learning the rest as you go. Superm401 - Talk 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Article feedback

Hi

We have done some revisions on Emusic page as part of our university module and would love to gain some feedback if possible. Is this a good place to request this?

Thanks

Jason Yorkshiregeek (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason! Welcome. I ain't no kind of expert on these things, but here's two observations (I hope other hosts will add to this list, or correct me, as necessary!).

• This sentence (and any others like it) could be improved: "eMusic early growth may have been due to its early support of the MP3 format, lack of digital rights management (DRM) encoding and low prices; all concepts advocated by the Open Music Model . But the real reason for eMusic's growth is this: It was the only online music store aside from iTunes that sold tracks that could be played on an iPod" If there are reliable sources that credit eMusic's MP3 support and its alternative to iTunes as reasons for its early success, you should attribute those statements to the sources. Otherwise it sounds like original research. So for example, you could rephrase the second sentence to read "Devin Leonard of CNN attributes eMusic's early growth to the fact that it was the online online music store aside from iTunes that..."
• I'm also not sure that information like the price of the basic membership plan is necessary for the article. This kind of information is subject to rapid change, so it goes out of date quickly. And it also comes off a little commercial: the encyclopedia article probably shouldn't adopt the tone of an advertisement, and when it quotes rate plans like this it kind of comes off that way.

anyway, that's a start. Hope it helps! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 03:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

HI Jtmorgan! Thanks for the reply and feedback. I have taken on board your comments and rephrase the sentence. I have also removed the pricing and replaced with "in exchange for a monthly fee". That should ensure it does not fall out of date as you rightly suggest. Thanks for taking the time to comment it is most appreciated. Yorkshiregeek (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Citing or footnoting

Hi all,

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I am editing an article that currently exists for a University project.

I'm not too sure if we need to cite a reference within our text, or do we just use a footnote to reference?

Any help would be appreciated, thank you :) LucianaFash (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Luciana, and welcome! Let me see if I understand your question ... if you mean should a sentence read like this:

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was x on May 5, 1995."

Or like this:

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average was x on May 5, 1995.¹"

The more preferred method overall is the second one, with the inline citation. That said, depending on how you write prose, or the context of the rest of the paragraph where the sentence is, there is nothing precluding you from using both in the same sentence. I'm hoping that helps a bit, but feel free to add more info and we'll see if we can get closer to the answers you need. --McDoobAU93 13:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(Edit clash):Hello Luciana. Thanks for dropping by. I think Luciana means footnotes to a bibliography section or just inline references. Both methods are used. If a limited number of sources are being cited multiple times, as in an architectural article about an old building, it can be easier to do the separate footnotes and bibliography. If there is a wide range of sources for different aspects of an article inline references are often better. Look at similar articles to see what works best.--Charles (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both, your comments have been very helpful. I see what you mean Charles. Although I'm still unsure. I'm currently editing the Internet relationship page.

My sandbox

This is what I have in my sandbox, and I have included in there a citation, which I am unsure if it is the correct way to cite. Would either of you be able to comment if, that would be the correct way to go about it please?

Thank you LucianaFash (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I included a "references" section, which you need for the footnote to show up. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

The footnote is perfectly fine. There is option to use {{Cite book}}, which helps keep things consistent, but it is not necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

Editing Etiquette

I'd like to edit the Digital identity article. As it's been pointed out on the talk page and by people addressed by the question, the article needs serious rewrites to make it less technical and more comprehensive. However, as I'm a beginner Wikipedian, I am not sure how should I approach rewriting what other people have already written, what is the etiquette for such procedures? Thanks, Bettinusz (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Here are some helpful links to check out:

1. Editing Policy
2. How to edit
3. Tutorial
4. Frequently Asked Questions

Hope they help! --Abigail was here :D _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 10:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add what I consider the most important tip for new editors: Be bold! :-) If you're considering making changes collaboratively with another editor, and you're not sure if they will approve of your edits, I think it's best to follow the "BOLD, revert, discuss" (BRD) editing cycle. Make your changes first (Bold), and if they don't like it, they can undo your change (Revert), then you can talk about what was wrong (Discuss), after which point somebody makes another change (Bold), etc. Repeat until exhaustion. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When we click the save button we are agreeing that our work can be "edited, used, and redistributed at will". If you think you can improve the text go for it.--Charles (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I followed your advice and edited some of the sections in the Digital identity article. I was bold and rewrote some significant parts as I think it was hard to understand, overcomplicated. If you could give me some feedback on the writing, style, anything that would be great. I want to make sure I'm going in the right direction and actually improving things rather than just rewriting. I also added a few extra sections, because the article was only focusing on technical aspects, I thought that was too narrow for the subject. I will try and add some sociological perspectives as well. Thanks again for your help and encouragement! Bettinusz (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying to figure out precisely how much documentation is needed

One of the things I'd like to edit is the description of "Progressive Mennonites" on the Mennonite page under Worship, Doctrine, and Tradition (not remembering how to link to a subsection). It's not inaccurate, it's just incomplete and it's something that frustrates progressive Mennonites (like me). We have LGBT members, but because that puts us under pressure, people sometimes emphasize that over everything else. I'd like to expand on the final sentence "Progressive Mennonite Churches place a great emphasis on the Mennonite tradition's teachings on peace and non-violence."

The problem I'm running into--there's not a lot of documentation on what, specifically, a "progressive" Mennonite is. It's used casually and as a term of self-description, but I haven't been able to find published works on the subject.

I'm not sure how to proceed or whether to proceed. Ruthbrarian (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Ruth, and welcome to the Teahouse! I certainly think you should be bold and proceed. It will take some hunting to find documentation of this branch of Mennonites, and it might be under a different term. For instance, one might call Jews who identify as Reformed "progressive" (as a contrast to Orthodox Judaism). So maybe the proper search term could be "Reform Mennonites", or something like that? --McDoobAU93 02:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey there Ruthbrarian, and welcome to Wikipedia! First of all, to link to an individual section ("Worship, doctrine, and tradition" in this case is the overall section header) use a hash symbol (#) between the article title and the section title. So this one would be Mennonite#Worship, doctrine, and tradition. Now, I'm glad to see that you understand how important documentation and sourcing is. Everything on Wikipedia should hypothetically be verifiable and if you add unsourced info any other editor would be well within their rights to remove it. You ask whether to proceed...absolutely! We encourage you to be bold and if you don't fix this, it might be a long time before someone with the same background/knowledge comes along. "How" is a little tougher, but the first thing I notice is its "casual" use and general vagueness (progressive is used everywhere)...is it possible there are other, more descriptive names for this group? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you've given me some food for thought. I'll keep doing research & see what I can come up with. No need to push, but I'd like to do it. Ruthbrarian (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the dirty little secrets of Wikipedia is that although any editor can delete unreferenced facts from an article that doesn't mean that one will. There are many articles where someone has contributed information and it has stuck there ever since even though it has no references. In most cases this is because the information is correct. I generally only stick a tag on something if it seems a bit iffy. If I know something is wrong then I delete it, even if I can't find a reference to back me up. If it seems right but it doesn't have a reference then I leave it alone but take care not to rely on it for anything important.

It is always better to include references if you can and on controversial articles or facts you really do have to have them but those are probably less than 0.1% of all our pages. filceolaire (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources from printed newspapers that have no web source.

Dear all. I am a beginner at Wikipedia. I have tried to upload scans from newspapers to Wikimedia but have been told that the information is copyright, so what is the best way to present text from a printed article when there is no evidence of it on the internet but the article exists in printed media such as a newspaper. Thanks Benparcell (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ben, and welcome! Actually it's rather easy to include source material found in printed media. There's no requirement that a website link be provided; just provide enough information to where someone can find the printed work you used and can find the information themselves. In the case of a newspaper, you'd want to use this template, which has pretty decent documentation explaining what goes in each field and which fields are required. It looks massive, but there's also a handy pulldown at the top of the edit window (see ">Cite" above) that will walk you through it. In short, you provide things like the name of the paper, the issue date for that particular edition, the page number, the story's author, the publisher, etc. Hope this helps, but feel free to ask more questions if you need further assistance! --McDoobAU93 15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Other editors should assume good faith, regarding what you state is written in the refs you cite. But if there is reason to believe an editor is fabricating references, sometimes others may ask to view scanned copies of the sources... but I'd expect this to be a rare ocurrence. -- Trevj (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, this helps lots [User talk:Benparcell|talk]] Benparcell (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I alowed to ask someone on Wikipedia to make an article?

I was going through the lists of anime and manga and I wanted to learn more about one particular manga. I went to Wikipedia but it has no page. It's Shinyaku Ookami ga Kuru! This German/Japanese manga was interesting so I wanted to know more about it. Could anyone make it? I don't know if there's a certain way to make articles about anime/manga or not. HTcreager (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, there are two ways to do it. The first is to be bold and begin researching and creating the article yourself. If that's a bit too daunting, you might want to ask the appropriate WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and see if someone there has some ideas. Maybe User:Rosalina2427, a fellow Host and our resident anime/manga expert, will have some other thoughts. Hope this helps! --McDoobAU93 17:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been recently asked to make an article and I found it quite a compliment, so it may have the same effect on another user. But as McDoobAU93 said, be bold and try it yourself. Bossplw (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do go through Wikipedia:Your first article for some tips before creation. Be Bold! Don't be afraid to ask for clarification here if you need any. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's also Wikipedia:Requested articles, which is split by subject area. -- Trevj (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with he above, if you do try and make the article yourself the likelihood is others will join in and help as you go. Plus just think how good it'll feel at the end knowing you started that article. WBClarkson (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How to start a category in Wikipedia ?

I want to start a new category in Wiki and to add some relevant articles to that. Someone please tell me how to do that ? Manmanoj (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Easy: find a page that you want to be in the category, add [[Category:<whateveryoucallit>]] to the bottom and save. Then click on the red link created in the grey bar at the bottom of the page. This should take you to an editing screen. Type what you want to say on the Category page, then save. Then add all your articles to it, using the same method as above. I would also recommmend something like Hotcat to do it quickly. Rcsprinter (whisper) 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Manmanoj. I hope this helps. First, you create a page titled Category:XXXX where XXXX is the name you want for the category. Then you place the text [[Category:XXXX]] into the articles you wish to add to the text. For example, if I have three pets: Fluffy the cat, Spot the dog, and Cuddles the porcupine, I would first create a page titled Category:My pets then I would go to the article Fluffy the cat and place the text [[Category:My pets]] in the article (usually, this goes at the very bottom.) That does two things. On the bottom of the page "Fluff the cat", the category "My pets" will now appear in the "Categories" line located at the bottom of the page, and the page "Fluffy the cat" will now ALSO appear on the page "Category:My pets". Repeat this for every article you want to include in the category. All of the details are covered in the pages Help:Category (which covers the technical details) and Wikipedia:Categorization (which covers the conventions on when and how to categorize articles). Does this help solve your problem? --Jayron32 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How do I add a Barn Star to my user page?

Hi, some kind Tea House person was recently kind enough to award me a barn star. How do I display this on my user page so it neatly slots to the right side with user boxes? Wikiworld2 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Wikiworld! I'm not sure if there are userbox versions of the barnstars, but I whipped up a custom userbox for you:

{{Userbox|id=[[File:Original Barnstar Hires.png|43px]]|info=This user has received the '''Original Barnstar.'''|id-c=#fdffe7|info-c=#fdffe7|border-c=#fceb92}}

This code should display the barnstar as a userbox (although with a different text than the original; the original text of the award's probably a bit too long for such a small box.) Just copy this code and paste it somewhere between the {{Userboxtop|Welcome}} and the {{Userboxbottom}} at the top of your user page. Congratulations! ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted sections

Hi everyone,

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and have just started writing bits for wikipedia on the web design page. I was wondering if another person takes out a part of you what you have wrote can you re add it if you feel that it is a essential to the piece?

Thank you Teri Bateson (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Teri. Technically you can, but it doesn't encourage collaboration working that way. Generally, editors are encouraged to use a bold, revert, discuss cycle, which means that you should make the edit you feel right, and then if another editor disagrees they take it back out. Now there are two editors with different points of view and they should both discuss the matter on the talk page of the article, until they can either come to an agreement or decide to go to other editors for alternative opinions. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Worm, Ok will post on the articles talk page, thanks for the feedback :) Teri Bateson (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Correcting references

I've been editing an article that has inline "references" written like an essay, like this: "Bean et. al (2001) states...". In some cases, I have found an online copy of the paper being referenced and can verify the reference (and change it to be more Wikipedia-friendly). In some others, however, I cannot find the paper at all, nor any mention of the paper except from the Wikipedia page and other websites quoting the Wikipedia page.

Should I just leave the block of text as-is, remove the citation, add "citation needed", or what? Thanks! --Ace Jon (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ace Jon. You're right that's a bit of a tricky one. I'd probably use {{title missing}}, which adds a little "title missing" message to the "Bean et al" part, if you can't find it. But otherwise, trust your judgement. If you think it's best to remove the text, remove it, explain why in your edit summary. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! That style of referencing is known as Harvard referencing, and although it is a tad unusual here, it is fine for Wikipedia articles. The full reference should be at the end of the article. So in the reference list you should be the article it is referring to. As a general rule, if an article already uses one reference style, it isn't recommend to change it to something else. But if it employs multiple referencing styles it is worth consolidating to one.

The paper itself may not be available online, or may be tricky to track down. But I'd generally raise the concern on the talk page rather than remove it - the internet is great, but it doesn't have everything, and many papers won't turn up in a Google search. - Bilby (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Image Permissions

If you've had an image tagged for not providing a license and/or the correct permission, and then followed the instructions to send off an email providing evidence of permission. How long does it roughly take to get the image sorted, and if theres not valid evidence will the image be unavailable to use on wikipedia for some time? Jack Greenaway (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long the OTRS queue is but I get the impression it's not more than a day or so.

If there's no valid permission it will be removed until valid permission is provided.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

FYI: the photosubmission queue is round about 30 days - so a response can last. mabdul 02:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And, further, even if it is deleted before OTRS can act on it, if OTRS verifies the permission, it can be undeleted. Remember, JGreenaway27, every action on Wikipedia can be reversed, including deletions, so even if this isn't dealt with in time to avoid having the image deleted, it can be undeleted once the permission processes is completed. --Jayron32 02:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your replies. Thats exactly what happened to me, my image was deleted... And I was worried that I wouldn't be able to use it again. Just waiting on the permission process now. Thanks again! Jack Greenaway (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How do I userfy a page?

Hi, was working on a page recently and there was some debate that the article needed to be fine tuned (userfied) a bit. How do I begin a new user page/space to begin this process? I read the userfy page but is unclear... I wish to begin a new user page entitled "Web-Based Addiction-Recovery" in my user space so what goes in the URL bar of my browser? Wikiworld2 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Wikiworld! To make that page, you'd go here. I find that an easy way to create pages in your userspace is to go to your profile (User:Wikiworld2), and in your address bar, after what's there already, type a forward slash ('/') and the title of the page you want to create. So, from User:Wikiworld2, you get User:Wikiworld2/Web-Based Addiction-Recovery, which will take you to the pace to create your new subpage. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Wikiworld, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can also create a personal sandbox to test out your edits before moving them to the Main namespace. Your personal sandbox is located at User:Wikiworld2/sandbox. Hope this helped you! -- Luke (Talk) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please critique my first major edit

I have written a fairly large edit for the article on Goshen College. This is my first major edit. It is in my sandbox and I would appreciate any constructive criticism prior to me posting it to the article. Thanks Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse.

The edit seems to be pretty well written. Per your comments on the talk page you want to put this edit in the history section, and I find that appropriate.

But, since you asked for criticism, I don't think the three references to Fox news are enough to reference the first sentence. No original research means that you can't make conclusions from sources that aren't in the sources themselves. And the three references seem to be examples of FOX "sensational reports", not reports by reliable resources that call FOX's reports "sensational". Do I make this point clearly? This gets very confusing quickly.

In no way does this mean that you shouldn't include this section, just reword the first sentence to something more neutral (or find reliable sources to indicate FOX's sensationalism in this instance).

Also, in the spirit of making the edit perfect, the references could be better formatted. You could simply insert a title for the links with enclosing them in single brackets [] and putting a title after the URL like [URL Title] or (to be really thorough) use a template like {{cite web}} (there is a Cite menu in the edit box that can help a lot in filling it out, I use it many times).

Any questions?

Chico Venancio (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Chico, it's easy to read, it's well referenced and to someone like me with no knowledge of the subject it's understandable. I'd add two things;

Firstly, each paragraph starts with a date which makes it start to look like a list, just changing the order of words can make this go away, for example, rewording the first sentence of the third paragraph to "The Board of Directors reversed the President’s Council decision on June 6, 2011, after seeking extensive input from the college community." It puts the emphasis on the decision (which was the important bit?) rather than the when.

Secondly, you can save some typing by using the nifty trick of naming references. You've got the same reference used three times - asolutely nothing wrong with that, it's valid and supports what you are saying - but rather than type it out three times, the first tine you type it use the opening <ref> bit and include <ref name="refname"> refname can be anything you want like "FoxNewsJune07", then every subsequent time you want to use this reference all you have to do is type <ref name="refname"/> nothing else but you must include the / . I've edited your sandbox to show this in action.

This is minor stuff, the important bit is that it's going to be a valuable addition to the article. NtheP (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Gents! I resolved Chico's concern by simply rewording the intro. NtheP, I appreciate your input and rewrote it for readability. Thanks for using the template you used on it. I am going to put it up as is for now and at a later date will play with the template to fix it up pretty. This will not be the last thing I write. Wiki-ing is fun.Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Great work Gtw :) Just a side note..I'm from Indianapolis originally, had a few friends from the Goshen area! Happy editing =) Sarah (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Where in the article to link to Wikisource

I'm trying to make sure that all of H. P. Lovecraft's works of fiction have links to the full-text story. I found a broken one earlier and am now checking them all. A great many are linked to Wikisource, using the template and that's awesome. Wikisource copies of the stories are high-quality.

But I've noticed that the links to Wikisource are all over the place. And sometimes it looks really awkward and out of the way. Nyarlathotep is semi-awkward, The Cats of Ulthar is pretty bad, but I like the way it's higher in the story page in Azathoth. I think it might almost even work in the top section.

Would it be ok to move it or is that against general Wikipedia form? Right now it's so disjoined from story-to-story and the box really doesn't look as good with references or external links as a straight link to the story would. Thoughts? Precedent? Ruthbrarian (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ruthbrarian, welcome back to the Teahouse! I would say there's a rough convention to place the links to Wikisource (and other projects) down near the bottom of the article, like near the external links; but this convention is not written in stone. In some situations (like the ones you are considering), it might be more appropriate to put the link higher up, like in the "synopsis" section; on the other hand, the infobox might get in the way, if you try and put it too high up. So what I'm trying to say is that I think you should move the templates to wherever you think is best for those articles. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I had to hop in here and say...awesome that you're working on HP Lovecraft =) I have a Necronomicon Christmas tree ornament. Yes, that's right! Sarah (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ruthbrarian, I'm not a Teahouse host, but this caught my attention and I also like to help - there is an inline template to replace the box that can go at the start of a section (like you might use a See Also:) but it's not ideal for this situation:

{{wikisource-inline|Nyarlathotep}}

gives:

Works related to Nyarlathotep at Wikisource

we're not looking for works related to Nyarlathotep, but the work itself - so really it should be something like "full text of ... at Wikisource". Based on your question, I've put in a request to edit the template to make this possible but have to wait for admin approval to get it done. As a temporary alternative you can use the non-template wikimarkup:

[[file:Wikisource-logo.svg|16x16px|link=|alt=]]The full text of [[s:Nyarlathotep|Nyarlathotep]] at Wikisource

which gives:

The full text of Nyarlathotep at Wikisource

if the template edit is approved, then this is the format that would follow on - hope this helps. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As if by magic the new template is in place

{{wikisource-inline|Nyarlathotep|single=true}}

will give:

The full text of Nyarlathotep at Wikisource

And you can add that at the start of each section to link to the full text on wikisource. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging two articles (eMusic and Cductive)

Hi,

Myself and a couple of fellow students are editing the eMusic article and are in the process of merging the Cductive article as mentioned. Can anyone give any pointers please? Mynewdomicile (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You can find the instructions here. Let us know if you have further questions. Superm401 - Talk 18:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the help, I've done most of the steps 1-3 and am not sure 5 applies, If possible could someone verify this please? Mynewdomicile (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As noted, it's okay for less experienced editors to use {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} instead of the more detailed {{copied}}. However, I've changed it use copied. Note that "edit summary" means the small box below the main text box. It's where you put "added merged information from cductive article". That is where you should put "Merged content from source article to here. See [[Talk:<destination article>#merger section]]." and Merged content to [[<destination article>#destination section, if applicable>]]. See [[Talk:<destination article>#merger section]]." (depending which article you're editing) in the future. It doesn't need to go in the main edit box. Superm401 - Talk 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Which references need to be checked?

How can I tell which resources need to be checked on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot

Do all the resources need to be checked?

Thanks! GMHayes (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the "This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources" template at the top of the section? If so, that it is saying that some of the sources (this, for example, is an atrocious source) don't appear to be fact-checked, or are self-published (see WP:RS for an extremely long guideline that I wouldn't expect you to actually fully read ;-) ). Does that sort of answer your question? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you see really bad sources in an article, there are two things you can do: Remove the bad sources, explaining why in an edit summary or on the talk page. Find better sources and add them to the article. Articles in academic journals and books published by academic publishers are best. Other sources may be OK as well, depending on the topic. You want to find sources with a reputation for fact checking and professional editorial control, and a good reputation in the field you are covering. Medical topics need medical journal articles. I write articles on mountaineers, and I know which mountaineering journals are respected. However, we don't want fringe sources in articles on fringe topics - we want mainstream reliable sources. And so on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there! Both responses absolutely help me out. I'm going to see what I can do :) Happy days! GMHayes (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

How to cite a repeating source only once?

I am currently adding a section to an article, and within that section I have incorporated the use of two direct quotes from a source. How can I cite right after both the quotes, while maintaining that both quotes are derived from only ONE source? Every time I've created a citation after the quotes (exact same citation for both), at the bottom where the references are listed it displays the exact same source cited twice (reflecting the two times I've cited that same source). How can I prevent this from happening, and cite the source only once? Thanks! Maya.Riaz (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Maya, welcome to the Teahouse! What you need to do is name the references. Here's an example: say you want to cite "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful" by Edsger Dijkstra multiple times in your article. The first time you cite it, you would write this:

<ref name="goto">Dijkstra, E. "GOTO Statement Considered Harmful."</ref>

The reference name you choose (in this example, it's "goto") is not particularly important as long as it's unique, but it helps to have at least a somewhat descriptive name. Then, every time afterwards that you want to use "GOTO Considered Harmful" as a source, instead of typing out the entire information within the ref tag again, you simply use the ref name again:

<ref name="goto"/>

Wikipedia will make another link to the same entry in the reference list as the first. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks a lot Writ Keeper! I realized that you must also include the closing of the reference tag (</ref>) in order for that method to work, but I got it to work eventually. Thanks again for your help!--Maya.Riaz (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Maya, you shouldn't need to use </ref>. Did you put / in when you used the ref the second time? It needs to read <ref name="goto"/> to work properly. NtheP (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I missed out the "/" in the ref name citation so I guess thats why it didn't work. Thanks for pointing that out Nthep, I'll be sure to fix that in my citations. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it ok to "stalk" a user because of their edits?

I've edited Wikipedia for a while now, but I never had a need to make an account. However, if you check my contributions, you will see that I joined to undo some bad edits to a page.

English appears to not be their first language and they aren't exactly proficient with it. I removed the opinions added and corrected the grammar. However, since then I've felt the need to monitor what they do to Tiesto related pages. I know they mean well, but it detracts from the quality of the article. Even besides the grammar, I've noticed everything they add doesn't use the correct way to spell Tiesto (Tiësto). lukini 15:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Lukini, and welcome! This is a good question. If you're simply undoing/fixing well-meaning but malformed edits, that's one thing. However, if you're following them to get in their business—for example, you respond on talk pages they post on even though you've never really been involved in that article—then it may be entering what's called Wiki-hounding. Even if you're dealing with grammar and such, some users may react as if you're stalking/hounding them, so it may behoove you to back off for a bit and let other editors fix it. This is hardly the be-all-and-end-all statement on this, so what do my fellow Hosts think? --McDoobAU93 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with McDoob, but it can be a pretty fine line at times. If they did something *obviously* bad (like blatant vandalism or breaking templates/image links or the like) then you're probably fine in fixing it, but for minor things, like the lack of a diacritic in a word, I'd probably just leave it be, just in case. However, the first thing I'd do, if I noticed a systemic problem with a user's edits, would be to try to talk to them on their user talk page; have you tried that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I definitely have no intention of actually stalking everything they do; I'm just interested in article edits. They haven't made any more edits since I joined, but I might mention the grammar/opinions on their talk page if it keeps happening. lukini (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good idea ... be constructive about it, offer to help them out, etc. --McDoobAU93 17:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What sort of bad spelling are they using? It might be a case of British/American English spelling differences (as noted in the Spelling section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style). Banaticus (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

They appear to use British spellings, but I know not to change these. Like I said, I used to edit articles using my ip before. I never made an account until now. However, it isn't an issue of spelling, British or otherwise. If you check my first comment on the Tiesto talk page, I put 2 examples of sentences they added. Wrong words were used or were missing. lukini (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Lukini, it's good to see you here! I think you've posed an interesting question (hence the multiple relies, perhaps) which has no obvious answer. My personal opinion is that, as your intentions are good - to improve Wikipedia - the best thing would be to talk to the editor in question. Perhaps you could speak to them on their user talk page and let them know the problem - you might even suggest that you're happy to look over their contributions if they would find it helpful. If they take it well, you may form a strong working relationship and even friendship with them. If they do not, you might want to stay back a little and leave them alone: that will show them that you're not trying to harass them, and their mistakes will be picked up by someone else later. You'll have to judge it as things progress - if you feel uncomfortable, please do come back here for further advice. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Best way to request review

What is the best way to request review of new article.

Rajenver (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Place {{subst:submit}} at the top. mabdul 10:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejenver, welcome to the Teahouse. Mabdul's suggestion works for articles created at Articles for creation but looking at your contributions you're asking about articles that have been created? In which case you've already gone some way to answering your own question by marking the article a possibly being of interest to a WikiProject. On the talk pages you've added the template flagging the articles to the interest of WikiProject India and you can see that currently the banner says "This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale." At some point somebody who is a member of WikiProject India will look at your articles and assess them for quality and importance. Currently Wikieproject India are running an assessment drive (perhaps you'd like to take part? If so the details are here) so you might find they are assessed sooner rather than later, but please be patient. Other alternatives would be to drop a line requesting a review at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics or adding the banner for another wikiproject like WikiProject Architecture to bring it to their attention. NtheP (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Question: re- your Click here...

• Your {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form|question=Click here to ask a question}} was not working for me just now...
• Also, why have you chosen to place the TOC on the RHS of this article? It catches me out every time!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gareth Griffith-Jones, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not really sure why the TOC is on the right; I guess that's what whoever created the page decided on. The 'Click here to ask a question' button will only work if you enable it in your preferences. To do this, click the Preferences link at the top of the page, then click the 'Gadgets' link on the menu bar there. Under the 'Browsing' heading, tick the box which says '"Ask a question" feature for the Wikimedia Foundation's "Teahouse" project'. That should make it work. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zippy! Okay, I've done that. Got some change... now the only reaction is to get a "blank" empty rectangle filling the lower part of the page – which not an edit page – that does not respond to my clicking on it. Odd, isn't it?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's quite odd - I'm not sure what's going on. You should see a box with a small heading box and an input box for your question. I'll see if I can get some other hosts to have a look at the problem for you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Gareth! Can you tell us what browser you're using, and which version it is? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a question and everything was fine. I'll ping the WMF folks who are working on the Teahouse pilot with me to take a look at this thread. This is probably best moved to the talk page, actually :) Sarah (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

First, you are no longer required to turn on the question box to ask a question. I am interested to hear about the browser. heather walls (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Other recent changes include: the hidden navbox, and the div closures for the page get wiped out regularly, perhaps when the questions are archived. heather walls (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your advice and help. I have been struggling with using Internet Explorer 8 up to now. Also, been unable to get much speed out the editing/show preview/show changes/save page sequence – and that's putting it mildly..! Tonight, I have successfully down-loaded Mozilla Firefox. Wow! My aged PC is "on fire" – it's lightening. Just tried your {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form|question=Click here to ask a question}} , AND IT WORKED. Kindest regards to you all, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to help you :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are my edits being deleted?

I've already spoken to another user about this, but I'd like a second opinion. Recently, I've been trying to edit the page 'List of characters in Transformers Prime', because there is a notice saying it requires copy-editing for grammar, cohesion etc., but strangely, whenever I (or anyone else I've noticed) edit the article at all, the edit is always deleted within 48 hours and the page is returned to exactly, word for word, the way it was before, and all grammatical and spelling errors are returned as well. Is it common for users to do this? And if so, what can be done about it? To be clear, I do NOT vandalise the article or write anything obscene, I only correct grammar and spelling, and condense each character synopsis down so they're shorter and easier to read, because in my opinion, they're much too long. MunkkyNotTrukk (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I've looked at the the history of the article and it looks like there is another editor who disagrees with your additions. The main issue as far as I can see is they disagree about the existence of Dreadwing. I suggest that you raise this at the article talk page and discuss it with the other editor to see if you can reach some agreement on how to proceed. NtheP (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response NtheP (it's good to know I'm not being ignored completely on here! :P), but the link goes to the wrong place, I'm talking about the character page, and the talk page you linked me to was for the episodes. However, I managed to find the character talk page and submitted my complaint there, but so far I've received no response, and really I don't think I ever will. But anyway, thank you again for your help and advice! MunkkyNotTrukk (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, nice to see the Teahouse is useful to you. Going to talk page should always be the first step in trying to understand and solve disputes in the article contents. You can go ahead and redo your edits and mention the talk page in the edit summary, the other editor(s) will probably engage you in a conversation about the article and your differing opinions. Always discuss changes that are challenged in the talk page. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi MunkkyNotTrukk. It may help if you fill in the edit summary box before saving to show other editors why you are changing the page.--Charles (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really important; specially when someone undoes your edits. Also, take care with the references, it is really important that an article have references from reliable sources. You removed some in this edit. I'll try to re add them while keeping your prose right now. Chico Venancio (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind that. tfw2005.com does not seem to be a reliable source, but do try to mention a reason when removing sources next time. Chico Venancio (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit frustrated ...

Hi Seniors , further to my article"Hradyesh" as guided by you all have reworked the same n posted . sadly it again got speedy deleted. Unable to understand what promotion or advertising m doing writing about an entrepreneurs work which is first ever in the country. Request seniors to please assist me on this , first article- 2 speedy deletion- m getting little frustrated with this ..

Help !!!!!

Aaanshu (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Hradyesh, deleted twice underG11, (i.e.Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Please see Wikipedia Notability Guidelines.

If you can not understand these, tell me who is/was this "Hradyesh"? (eg, He was a writer, wrote more than 50 books in ABC language and got X and Y awards etc). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tito, As mentioned have already referred to the mentioned guidelines . Subject have introduced a global concept of automobiles - Hot Rods n Street Rods for the very first time in India's automobile history. you may please refer the details at my page

'll be great to understand the disconnect. Thanks Aaanshu (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Create a draft of the article in your sandbox, and leave me a message when it is done! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaanshu, if the article deleted was basically the same as the one you created at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hradyesh then I can see why it was deleted as promotional. You haven't really written about the man but about the launch of street rods in India and the supporting references are virtually all press releases about street rods. Please read the general notability guidelines to see what you need to establish about the person not his business. In summary, it's independent coverage from reliable sources about him not street rods that is needed. I'm afraid that press releases, even when published via well known national newspapers do not meet those criteria. If after reading them you'd like more explanation about the notability guidelines, drop back here and we'll see if we can help some more. NtheP (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding external links

I am trying to improve some articles on automobiles by adding external links to their corresponding websites. Is this a form of vandalism, especially if I add them to articles at rapid succession? (I haven't added any yet!) Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 02:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding external links can be good, and it can be bad. WP:EL explains in detail. Having links to the official website of the car is a good thing, there is even a template {{Official website}} that helps. Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for your answer. Jedd Raynier (talk) (contributions) 13:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Style and readability edits legit?

Are improvements in readability or style (not content) legitimate edits? I am wondering because i use Wikipedia content in my writing everyday (with links as citations) in the definitions of terms I make for newspaper articles (my rather strange job) and I often see places where the clarity or accuracy of the prose could be improved, but I could also see where the issue of readability might be ultimately unresolvable, an issue of personal preference, also I wonder about this from a sort of philosophical perspective too, Wikipedia content definitely converges to greater accuracy, but does readability require one unified author (I read my physiology textbooks & Wikipedia outloud into MP3 and then listen to them as a form of study, this really makes clarity of prose apparent). Fernquestjon (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for wanting to contribute. Yes, such edits are permissible, but they can't violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style (which is a rather large set of documents, so just be careful if your changes involve nitty-gritty styling details). --Cybercobra (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will add reading Wikipedia's Manual of Style to my to-do list. Making my way through Wikipedia: The Missing Manual now which seems like the most comprehensive intro :) Fernquestjon (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the Manual of style. Most things simple common sense rules. And one of the great things about Wikipedia is that if you are doing something wrong, people will correct you.

As a rule, make your edit summaries clear, and make comments in the talk page for larger edits; don't worry too much about reading all the rules. Chico Venancio (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fernquestjon. There is a Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors who work to do just what you are suggesting. I am sure they will be pleased to have any help you can give.--Charles (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to join. Added Wikipedia:How_to_copy_edit and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/How_to to my reading list :) Fernquestjon (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Just don't let all that reading get in the way of editing :) I bet you'll make a strong contribution without too much studying up. Visit again if you have any questions! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 06:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I add, it's probably best to encourage new editors to look through the Manual of Style selectively (it's rather daunting), but editors are not normally criticised for going against it. Rather, someone is likely to come along and clean up an article text to make it consistent later. PS We do desperately need a shortened version for new editors, which I'm working on. Tony (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

How not to step on feet when improving content?

Any hints for making improvements to articles discretely while not offending people?

Example: I was changing some of the text about the rabbit digestive system and while I was doing this two things came to mind: 1. this is a big change smack in the middle of other people's work, so even though the change was important because some facts were wrong and the works cited either no longer existed or were not credible sources (e.g. pet food ad), I don't want to come across as Conan the Barbarian; and 2. in the end I came to the conclusion that what was needed was a separate article on the rabbit digestive system citing the highest quality sources (and I am writing this now, planning to keep a draft copy hanging off my user page, is this legit? don't really want to post it until it is a finished article, having someone critique it would be nice too, perhaps in the mammal project, but everything will be backed by the highest quality sources). Any feedback? :) Fernquestjon (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jon! The real answer here is to be bold; don't worry about stepping on toes! Part of the idea of Wikipedia is that nobody "owns" their articles, even if they were the only one contributing to it. If they don't like your changes, they can always (politely) revert them, and then you both can go to the talk page and discuss it, if you so desire. The great thing about Wikipedia (or rather, one of them) is that you have to really, really put your mind to it to mess something up permanently. If you make a mistake, or a bunch of people happen disagree with you, the old version is almost never more than a few clicks away, so there's really no reason to not just go for it! within reason, though; just...don't be crazy reckless, please Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll go a step further ... take a look at the second line of text right below the edit window, the one that says "By clicking the 'Save Page' button, ...." The VAST majority of people who edit here take that to heart, in that when they save their changes, it's no longer theirs. Will someone's feelings or sensitivities be hurt? Maybe. It happens to me a lot when people start changing an article I may have done a lot of work with, and it lasts all of a couple of seconds. However, those who are working in the true spirit of Wikipedia (myself included, without question) will take a good long look at your changes and say "that works better than what I had" or "maybe there's a compromise". If they revert unceremoniously and without explanation, that's where you move into bold, revert, discuss as Writ Keeper noted above. Maybe along with Wiki-kittens and Wiki-cookies, we could send out Wiki-steel-toe boots to people who are taking things a bit too seriously? :) --McDoobAU93 17:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And as to developing a new article in your userspace that is standard practice. You can make a special subpage for it by typing User:Fernquestjon/pagename in the searchbox. This takes you to a page with a red link of that name which you can click to create the page. When the article is ready to be moved to the main encyclopedia you can also submit it to the "Did you know" section of the front page which showcases new articles and get official credit for creating it.--Charles (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback :) I have one more question, better to ask new question to make it stand out :) Thanks Fernquestjon (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, be bold, and if you think there might be contention, why not leave a short note on the talk page saying you've just made a big edit, please let me know if there are any problems. That way, editors are much more likely to engage. Thanks for your work! Tony (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)